2012 Civics to be sold out before 2013 arrives?

I am planning on buying a 2012 Civic later this year. I just stopped into my dealer who informed me that they will likely be sold out of Civics in late August. Does that seem right or the dealer just trying to get me to buy sooner? There were not many on his lot when I stopped there today. I'm concerned that if I end up having to buy a 2013 that I will not be able to get any where near as good a deal as I'm looking at now (an LX out the door for $19300).

Comments

That might be a valid projection. I just did an inventory search for new Civics in the USA, per cars.com there's 37,265 of them. Honda sold just over 28,000 Civics in the USA in June, just over the 27,000 average sales each month for the first 6 months of the year. That's roughly 900 sales per day. Based on that, 37,265 is a 41 day supply. If no more 2012 Civics are built, very possible dealers will run out by late August.

However, the 2013 Civic is supposed to be significantly improved over the 2012. So if you don't get a 2012, you might pay a little more for a 2013 but get a better car.

The criticism of the 2012 was unwarranted, from fan boys who want every car to be 'sporty'. It is a decent value and I am satisified with mine, I dont expect a 'super luxurious interior' in an 18K$ car. Also, don't want to be a 'beta tester' for infotainment systems and shuddering auto-clutch trans.

Not "everything"... just a decent-quality interior, given it's one of the highest-priced cars in its class. Just a return of the crisp handling Civics used to have. Maybe a more modern transmission, i.e. 6 cogs like most of its competitors have. Maybe a tad less road noise--no, it's not a luxury car but the road noise is excessive for its class.

The verdict is in, and it's pretty consistent: the 2012 Civic is a big disappointment. Honda agrees. But some folks will buy (or sell?) anything Honda offers, without question, because it's Honda. Brand loyalty is a great thing--for the automaker.

You really don't see anything wrong with the Civic's dash? Nothing?? Okee-doke.

As for why add a 6th gear to the trannies... lower revs at cruise mean less engine noise, better fuel economy. And yes, in general, the more gears, the better. Even Honda seems to agree with me on that...

No matter how bad a color is to the masses, there will always be someone who likes it.

Very true! Which is why so many Corollas and Civics are still being sold even though they are arguably two of the worst cars in their class.

There comes a point where an engine will "lug" and that is very bad on an engine.

Something known as "downshifting" will take care of that. Automatics do that... automatically. With a stick, well, you can lug away all you want.

As for the Civic's dash... other than looking and feeling cheap to me, especially compared to almost every Civic competitor except the new Versa, I have no problem with it. Problem is... seems as if a LOT of folks agree. Though not everyone, clearly.

There will be on 2012 -- with 10K miles on it -- floating around. I'm giving up and trading mine in. My back hurts every time I drive the car -- and I don't have back problems. I gave it to my daughter for the last couple of months and my back problems have totally disappeared. It's ridiculous to have a new car that I don't enjoy driving. I think the problem is that I'm 5-1 and the lumbar support is too high, or the seat bottom is too low. I've tried a couple of cushions -- they help, but I'm never really comfortable. Hope I can get a reasonable deal. I know I'll take quite a hit, but my back is worth it.

Don't know how people can complain about the 9th generation when the 8th and 7th were so popular yet their interiors were much worse in my opinion. The 12 Civic is a great small car and not really that small anymore but a midsize.

I would choose my replacement car very carefully. I have never heard of anyone having back problems after driving a Honda but I'm sure one out of 1000 will. How will you know a different car will help unless you drive it a great distance?

I don't know how you can say that Corollas and Civics are two of the "worst" cars in their class.

YOU don't like the 2012 Civics but they are great cars! Like all Hondas, they will run well after 200,000 miles and they will have great reliability. they will hold their values as no other car can.

The critics didn't like the fact that Honda made few changes and I suppose this is true. Honda tends to rest on their laurels a bit. Look for some big changes in the 2013 Civics and especially the Accords!

Fanbois want the Integra and Civic Si hatchback to return, so anything else is 'inferior'. But then how many Hyundai Elantras see 200k miles?

Only things that seem cheap are the console sides, parking brake lever, and radio surround. No squeeks, rattles, loose parts or fading letters.

5-10 years from now, on used car market, buyers will say 'It's a Honda, they have good rep, I'm interested' not "Fan boys say the interior parts were cheap back in '12..." Who cares in the long run about some tiny bits?

Just traded my 2012 EX-L in Friday after having it for just over a year. Like you, I've started having back pain with the seats (and I'm only 24). Granted, maybe it would last to 200,000 miles, but within the first year of owning it, it developed a strange shaking when approaching 55 mph, the blower motor for the HVAC was going out, exhaust rattled (in addition to the myriad of other rattles, squeaks, and noises), and the leather seats were wearing through on the outside bolstering of the driver side in addition to the splitting leather in the back seat.

I did not drive aggressively and I religiously cleaned and treated the leather seats. I have very serious doubts about the quality of the 2012 models due to the cheapness of the car, but hope for everyone else's sake that mine was a lemon.

In any case, because of the rapid development of the aforementioned problems over the past month, and in light of how many miles I drive per year, I know that warranty would run out by May 2013 and I'd be stuck footing the bill for any new problems cropping up.

I ended up buying a new 2012 Buick Verano, and even though I gave up the great gas mileage of the Civic, the fit and finish, quietness, style, amenities, and length of warranty were worth it. Moreover, I ended up paying about $100 less than what I paid for the Civic new (I purchased both quite a bit below sticker).

I know some may argue about GM cars' reliability, but I think Honda's reputation may no longer hold water and I wasn't willing to stay in the car to find out.

Thanks for the well wishes. With regard to the leather wear, the service manager at my dealership had seen it quite a bit before, but on Accords and Pilots. I've likewise found discussions of the same problem online (again referring to the Accord and Pilot though).

The split in the back was the first issue I had and that was back in the early spring. Unlike the other problems which, yes, would have been fixed under warranty, the dealership took pictures of the split and sent them to Honda for them to approve. I never geard back so I tried contacting them on numerous occasions without success; the dealership had warned me that Honda would likely not approve the repair. I ended up fixing it with a leather repair kit, and my repair turned out pretty good, though no one sat in the back so the repair held.

The mechanical problems all started within a two week period which was also the one year mark since I had purchased it. The dealership said they couldn't find any problems with the car. The day after I got it back, I decided to treat the seats as usual when I noticed the excessive wear on the outside bolstering. Presumably it was just from me getting in and out of the car. I took it back to the dealer, pictures were taken and sent to Honda, whom I could still get no response from in the following weeks.

I suppose it was the excessive wear, compounded with the mechanical problems, the fact that it was only 1 year old and Honda's lack of contact (even saying it wasn't covered would be better than leaving me waiting) that convinced me to wash my hands of it as I didn't want to deal with it, nor do I have the time to do so as I work and am a full time law student.

With Buick (GM), I had a technical question regarding its telematics system and sent a message via there website and was called back the next morning and have been followed up with emails from the same person to insure my question was answered.

Again, I think my issue may have been due to the specific car I had and I hope everyone else enjoys there's, just keep an eye on the leather and be prepared for virtually no contact with Honda if you ever need to do so.

I will say, I did always beat the EPA estimates in the Civic, averaging in the mid 40s on the interstate.

I don't know how you can say that Corollas and Civics are two of the "worst" cars in their class.

Because I've driven almost every car in the class. Also I am not the only one with this opinion, e.g. in the March 2011 Automobile Magazine, an article points out that 15 years ago, the two cars at the top of the compact class were the Civic and Corolla. Now, the mag opines, the top two cars in the compact class are the Focus and Elantra. That article is mostly about those two cars, but they also briefly review most of the rest of the cars in the class and explain why they are NOT on top of the class, in their opinion. There's also CR's take on the 2012 Civic: Not Recommended because it scored too low in their road tests. Whodathunk THAT would ever happen.

Yes, Civics and Corollas have a great track record for reliability. If that makes them "great cars" in your book, great. It takes more than that for me to call a car "great".

And if the Civic were so great, why would Honda be making "big changes" to the 2013 Civic, one year after a redesign? :confuse:

Honda is changing the Civic because of people like yourself that don't find them appealing. I do agree, they should have changed them more. That doesn't negate the fact they are great cars. Show me a Ford or a Hyundai with 200,000 miles that compares to a similar Honda. Yes, they have come a LONG way but only time will tell just how "great" they really are.

For me, a "great" car is a car that drives well and doesn't give me trouble.

As far as CR, they aren't the same objective magazine they once were. They have become much more subjective and I think they should stick to testing toasters and lawn mowers. So much of what they write now is personal opinion. It didn't used to be that way with them but things change.

As I have stated before, Honda is faced with some damm good competition that they didn't have in the past. They are no longer heads and shoulders above the competition. They can't rest on their laurels and I do believe they have received this message loud and clear. I certainly hope so.

" Yesterday's hits won't win today's ball games"

The fact that Honda has scrambled to make the "big changes" on the 2013 Civics does show they have learned lessons. BTW the 2012 Civics that you think are so bad are actually selling at a brisk pace. Guess they can't be too bad?

Consider the target audience for a Civic Coupe and then consider this. You can NOT get Satellite radio in the 2012 Civic Coupe unless you get the loaded Navigation. Not even an option if you don't have Nav. Contrast with the Hyundai Elantra Coupe or the Kia Forte Koupe... In the Elantra Coupe you get Satellite radio in standard even in the most basic model. I imagine the Kia is the same. Honda is lucky that Nissan does not produce a Sentra Coupe. I am just using sattelite radio as an example, all Honda's lately are WAY behind in the option department.

Corollas sell well also and they are outclassed by many others. All that tells us is that Toyota, and Honda, have a long-term reputation that attracts many buyers. It doesn't mean the Corolla and Civic are great cars. You probably know the old line about McDonald's selling a lot of burgers. Are they great burgers? No.

Yesterday's hits CAN win ball games, for this season. But the lineup starts getting old, reflexes slow, the players rest on their old stats for too long. Pretty soon, they are gone, swapped out for the kid from the farm club who has no history in the bigs but can hit better, run better, and play better defense. And doesn't cost as much.

When you have an iPhone that you can hook up to your car and listen to any streaming radio station in the world for free, not having satellite radio is no big deal. When you pay so much for a car, options are nice but reliability is better. We have a 2012 CRV and are planning to get a civic, because they are solid, comfortable, nice looking cars. They have awesome fuel efficiency. They are not trendy. Trendy cars do not age well and start to seem dated over the long haul. Having classic lines people like over the years is better than having a car that was hot 10 years ago and now doesn't appeal to a new generation of drivers. I do not believe in changing things just for the sake of being new. "You can always add options, but you cannot make once bought an unreliable car, reliable.

There is a reason why Honda's always hold their value. There is a reason Honda cars keep selling despite all the press wanting all the bells and whistles. It is obvious that the press and rating agencies do not value the same things most drivers do.

We test drove a Civic EX and drive a CRV EX and we did not experience the complaints that I have been seeing. When we were in the market for a crossover we test drove EVERY ONE. The Honda was the only one that felt solid. Hyundai had all the bells and whistles but felt better in the Honda. We were not Honda fanboys. We have owned Fords (my escort wagon lasted 15 years and dad's escort lasted 25 until it was totalled), Toyotas (6 years and doing just fine), GMC (would have lasted longer but got totalled by a huge commercial truck with no one getting hurt), and so we are not mindless purchasers. We just value different things. We want our cars to last 15-20 years. We want excellent gas mileage without having to buy a hybrid. We do not want to spend anymore time in the shop than necessary. Maybe because I always valued dependability I may not know what true luxury or performance is, but there are a lot of cars that wow people that end up in the shop more than on the road. All those bells and whistles are nice until they give out and give your dealer a whole bunch of repair business.

By the way, we can NEVER buy any KIA even thought they may be nice because my husband is red/green color blind and all their consoles have red LED. I think there are companies that are so concerned about being cool instead of practical. Even if they would correct it, we would still be concerned with its track record for reliability and how well it would age.

There is a lot of talk about how Honda is no fun. Fun to me is not having to go to the shop or the gas station as much. Fun is knowing that I won't have to look for cars for awhile. Fun is opening up the moonroof, listening to tribal music station from south america, and having all the passengers including yourself comfy.

I have to wonder about all these rating agencies it doesn't seem to be about reliability, durability, and efficiency anymore but gagets, style, and whether you can race with your car rather than get to work. They value style over substance and that is why they are telling people that Honda is worse in its class because they undervalue what Honda owners value. Personally, we are not gadget people, we actually prefer manual doors and roll up windows, but liked the Honda EX how it was laid out. I love my moonroof, iphone streaming, and bluetooth calls. I tolerate power windows and doors because that is just standard these days. This great for me, but then I can be happy with a stripped down Yaris but my husband loves the Honda too much.

I am such a car shopping nut that I created a spreadsheet comparing the options of the Civic LX, Elantra and Mazda 3i Touring. For the features I wanted the Civic LX was only missing the Bluetooth, Outside Air Temp., and rear disc brakes. I don't want the 16 inch wheels because based on my research and CR test results, better mileage comes with the smaller wheels. But the Civic has the auto-off headlights and the others do not and that's a biggy for me because my current car has auto-off headlights and I would be dealing with a lot of dead batteries without that feature. Also, I drove all 3 cars and preferred the feel of the throttle, steering, ride, seating, and braking of the Civic. That being said I won't be buying till Oct, or Nov and I would sure like to know what they are changing for the 2013. It drives me nuts because if the 2013 is not to my liking there will be few 2012's left to pick from.